IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [netconf] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-netconf-yang-push-22: (with COMMENT)

"Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <evyncke@cisco.com> Mon, 29 April 2019 13:21 UTC

Return-Path: <evyncke@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CEE81200EC; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 06:21:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.5
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com header.b=iaqVj3vH; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=aty5f4bw
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2wvq8vemzup7; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 06:20:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-3.cisco.com (alln-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.142.90]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8C5AD1200B4; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 06:20:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2878; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1556544059; x=1557753659; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=1ZtQxQoFaQ+Q5n7HrN9a+IC+GkmhVbUk/LD4MKqnzrY=; b=iaqVj3vHVFOcYrF7k0BoEJ4RvRNm2yqbTYet7b13lIJ0GXcKSEDAuLpC yaQbPWcmM7gZG4bSEMIl7eiWooUUFTvmcg/Wjb8RIsAceLp460rjcDzuL vM4lw/r4iWQVTaZjZOGC0Tm/TSir23OicI6ulEvJiUqnvABgwSH01mu8K A=;
IronPort-PHdr: 9a23:Ksc+CBaOz1LcsU0oXLDcKDX/LSx94ef9IxIV55w7irlHbqWk+dH4MVfC4el20gebRp3VvvRDjeee87vtX2AN+96giDgDa9QNMn1NksAKh0olCc+BB1f8KavncT08F8dPfFRk5Hq8d0NSHZW2ag==
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0BeBwDE+MZc/5RdJa1mH4F4gT5QA2hVIAQLKIQQg0cDjwyCMpdHgS4UgRADVA4BASMKhEACF4YbIzUIDgEDAQEEAQECAQJtHAyFSwIEEhERDAEBNwEPAgEIGgImAgICMBUFCwIEDgUigwABgWkDHAECDKImAoE1iF9xgS+CeQEBBYFGQYJyGIIOAwaBCyeLSheBQD+BOAwTgkw+gmECAQIBgSoBDAYBNoJzMoImiwWCN5k/CQKCCYYRiFmDSRuCDYY0jGaDCY9FjgwCBAIEBQIOAQEFgVABNmVYEQhwFWUBgkGCGxcUgziFFIU/cgGBKJBAAQ0XB4IlAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.60,409,1549929600"; d="scan'208";a="269682860"
Received: from rcdn-core-12.cisco.com ([173.37.93.148]) by alln-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 29 Apr 2019 13:20:58 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-013.cisco.com (xch-rcd-013.cisco.com [173.37.102.23]) by rcdn-core-12.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x3TDKw4u026283 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 29 Apr 2019 13:20:58 GMT
Received: from xhs-rtp-001.cisco.com (64.101.210.228) by XCH-RCD-013.cisco.com (173.37.102.23) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 08:20:57 -0500
Received: from xhs-rcd-001.cisco.com (173.37.227.246) by xhs-rtp-001.cisco.com (64.101.210.228) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 09:20:56 -0400
Received: from NAM04-SN1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (72.163.14.9) by xhs-rcd-001.cisco.com (173.37.227.246) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3 via Frontend Transport; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 08:20:56 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-cisco-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=1ZtQxQoFaQ+Q5n7HrN9a+IC+GkmhVbUk/LD4MKqnzrY=; b=aty5f4bwBKBSdlScRIt9FrJ42b2PvOCloX8qF7s5UlXH3ubIcJSihN+/5pvmsBYzBiv1xyF+ieYXSEflpDKqjJxCj6v0VHP6g70shdRGbzag11XnQpFSsRwDjblu0kNOkQX8QuzVoeutlVjQY/1nRO6/jxkyRZHADJEzs7cgxLk=
Received: from MN2PR11MB4144.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (20.179.150.210) by MN2PR11MB3823.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (20.178.254.86) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.1835.14; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 13:20:55 +0000
Received: from MN2PR11MB4144.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::3822:32af:5c31:b48f]) by MN2PR11MB4144.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::3822:32af:5c31:b48f%3]) with mapi id 15.20.1835.010; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 13:20:55 +0000
From: "Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <evyncke@cisco.com>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
CC: "netconf@ietf.org" <netconf@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-netconf-yang-push@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-netconf-yang-push@ietf.org>, "kent+ietf@watsen.net" <kent+ietf@watsen.net>, "netconf-chairs@ietf.org" <netconf-chairs@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-netconf-yang-push-22: (with COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHU/o1ChHc7Q7eNKUqqXSLc5/bp5KZTMGcA
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2019 13:20:54 +0000
Message-ID: <A327DE47-A539-4652-B29B-0FB30DC703EE@cisco.com>
References: <155654356221.15895.6935060528947597341.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <155654356221.15895.6935060528947597341.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Accept-Language: fr-BE, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/10.18.0.190414
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=evyncke@cisco.com;
x-originating-ip: [2001:420:44f0:1252:e8f5:d737:aace:ff2b]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: efae2c51-3089-4d69-dbf5-08d6cca5828a
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390118)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(4534185)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(5600141)(711020)(4605104)(2017052603328)(7193020); SRVR:MN2PR11MB3823;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: MN2PR11MB3823:
x-ms-exchange-purlcount: 2
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <MN2PR11MB3823991250C5183559B64F60A9390@MN2PR11MB3823.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:8882;
x-forefront-prvs: 0022134A87
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(396003)(366004)(376002)(39860400002)(136003)(346002)(189003)(199004)(91956017)(66574012)(6306002)(54906003)(46003)(966005)(8936002)(76116006)(53936002)(14454004)(97736004)(102836004)(224303003)(4326008)(58126008)(68736007)(25786009)(6512007)(73956011)(316002)(478600001)(486006)(82746002)(6116002)(36756003)(229853002)(83716004)(66946007)(71200400001)(6486002)(2616005)(6246003)(14444005)(446003)(186003)(476003)(7736002)(71190400001)(305945005)(2906002)(256004)(5660300002)(76176011)(6506007)(6436002)(11346002)(81166006)(33656002)(81156014)(86362001)(6916009)(66476007)(66556008)(99286004)(64756008)(66446008); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:MN2PR11MB3823; H:MN2PR11MB4144.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: cisco.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: 5FJBz4YdLqP/dDdBv+7DeQ3057gAAH89wIIbjooolAB1eIaZGP+b9Y9XZemY7saCytzmUaMXODRkH6ONMCZtfu/9/3L242kkBVxwGdn2epVulyMgiX6YcEbYKX7mx0LtYxg2BuFKao0ZEOpgvnYno4ZF3XWCK2TKiaQNLJFAAbWCqK3e0ZlChSOKcfa/qujcd8boBC6p9LEjRYIxRpy6jcuWQldDQSegxvG4/1AZ6kLPyaR42BdHLshN99PLyZQ8iQe0jlD+xFIcFYvaAuH3V+ppDaufba6UEVvyLNgH/AKnNn66VZR2AdQ5Nup2yyfRCoKYYXCVnUyJDNAu1kBuX+nUd8pG5Vf9b24R10HSVog97KztjcfhbiisQlpx1LR7uxiU3BlKKEhmdmloMXoDZ60LaP9flS0r/a/h2SeoMgw=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <CC8C57D30DCEEC4F93900BD4283D087B@namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: efae2c51-3089-4d69-dbf5-08d6cca5828a
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 29 Apr 2019 13:20:54.9441 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5ae1af62-9505-4097-a69a-c1553ef7840e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: MN2PR11MB3823
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.37.102.23, xch-rcd-013.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: rcdn-core-12.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/7OISsuXy35wTHKWGAZUE2Iz5-CQ>
Subject: Re: [netconf] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-netconf-yang-push-22: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETCONF WG list <netconf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netconf>, <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netconf/>
List-Post: <mailto:netconf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf>, <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2019 13:21:01 -0000

Please ignore my comment C3, my bad...

-éric

On 29/04/2019, 15:12, "iesg on behalf of Éric Vyncke via Datatracker" <iesg-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of noreply@ietf.org> wrote:

    Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
    draft-ietf-netconf-yang-push-22: No Objection
    
    When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
    email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
    introductory paragraph, however.)
    
    
    Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
    for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
    
    
    The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
    https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netconf-yang-push/
    
    
    
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    COMMENT:
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    Getting a streaming telemetry for changes in datastore appears quite useful.
    
    Please note that I did not review in depth after the section 4.
    
    Comments
    --------
    
    C1) Out of curiosity, it is surprising for a netconf wg document to have 7
    errors indicated by the YANG validator. Are they real errors or is the `pyang`
    validator incorrect or missing references?
    
    C2) 7 authors... the limit is usually 5 authors max. Can you justify?
    
    C3) section 2. It should be RFC 8174 without citing RFC 2119.
    
    C4) section 3.7, why not forcing a resynch (and a patch-id of 0) rather than
    simply rolling explicitly the patch-id to 0. The latter seems to me as prone to
    synchronization errors.
    
    Nits
    ----
    
    N1) unsure why all Cisco Systems authors are not grouped together
    
    N2) "Xpath": should be described (or having a reference) before first use in
    section 3.6
    
    N3) a couple of "yang" in lowercase while I believe "YANG" is always written in
    uppercase

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email